• scientists are going to bluesky

    From Retrograde@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 25 13:30:58 2024
    From the «cuz X sux and hates science» department:
    Title: ‘A place of joy’: why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky Author:
    Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0000
    Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03784-6

    Nature, Published online: 21 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03784-6[1] Researchers say the social-media platform — an alternative to X — offers more
    control over the content they see and the people they engage with.

    Links:
    [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03784-6 (link)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 25 15:30:34 2024
    On 25 Nov 2024 13:30:58 GMT, Retrograde <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    'A place of joy': why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky

    I've seen it on X, where Trump's stooges attempt to degrade a legit
    post with the "party's" response.

    They foam with non-sense...not factually based.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Mon Nov 25 23:19:17 2024
    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On 25 Nov 2024 13:30:58 GMT, Retrograde <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    'A place of joy': why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky

    I've seen it on X, where Trump's stooges attempt to degrade a legit
    post with the "party's" response.

    They foam with non-sense...not factually based.


    Ahh... finally a blue sky, fact checked and all, where only the truth will
    be allowed to be told! Blessed are the fact checkers, the key to all
    truth! ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Nov 25 19:26:38 2024
    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:19:17 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Ahh... finally a blue sky, fact checked and all, where
    only the truth will be allowed to be told!

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to view this
    topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant" posts.

    At least 5 states report an increase in calls to poison control

    Calls to poison centers have increased in a number of states following
    Donald Trump's suggestion last week that disinfectants be considered a
    possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. Yes, people actually
    started ingesting disinfectants like Lysol last week. While Trump
    claimed his comment was sarcastic on Friday, he once again took no responsibility for the consequences resulting from his stupid remarks

    https://www.poison.med.wayne.edu/updates-content/kstytapp2qfstf0pkacdxmz943u1hs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 25 22:49:11 2024
    On 25 Nov 2024 13:30:58 GMT, Retrograde <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    'A place of joy': why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky

    X Footnote - Musk has recently made a change so if not login, a
    twitter's posts can not be seen. Before, he set it up so that only
    older posts could be seen. With Twitter, current posts would be seen.

    He's playing hard ball now. A single tweet can still be seen.

    32 sec vid
    https://x.com/InsaneRealitys/status/1861150674391531578

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Tue Nov 26 10:24:59 2024
    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:19:17 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Ahh... finally a blue sky, fact checked and all, where
    only the truth will be allowed to be told!

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to view this
    topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant" posts.

    Incorrect. There are facts, fiction and friction!

    At least 5 states report an increase in calls to poison control

    Calls to poison centers have increased in a number of states following
    Donald Trump's suggestion last week that disinfectants be considered a possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. Yes, people actually
    started ingesting disinfectants like Lysol last week. While Trump
    claimed his comment was sarcastic on Friday, he once again took no responsibility for the consequences resulting from his stupid remarks

    https://www.poison.med.wayne.edu/updates-content/kstytapp2qfstf0pkacdxmz943u1hs

    As for this, Trump never said that people should be injected with bleach.
    He was making an analogy, which is perfectly clear if you watch the video
    of the legendary press conference in its entirety.

    If people are stupid and do it, they only have themselves to blame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blueshirt@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 26 13:43:22 2024
    D wrote:

    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to
    view this topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant"
    posts.

    Incorrect. There are facts, fiction and friction!

    No, no, no... that's not correct.

    There are facts and then there are alternative facts!

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Nov 26 07:16:13 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:24:59 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    If people are stupid and do it,
    they only have themselves to blame.

    Irrelevant point....

    "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer expressed similar views, whether
    comments are "serious or not" she said people listen to those in
    power."

    Trump is an illiterate person in regards to medicine, and should have
    shut the fuck up.

    Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global
    study finds https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/22/hydroxychloroquine-trumps-covid-19-cure-increases-deaths-global-study-finds

    Ahh... finally a blue sky, fact checked and all, where only the truth will
    be allowed to be told!

    When it comes to accepted/known information, and those like Trump who
    know nothing on a given topic espouse gibberish, their posts need to
    be eliminated. And what they really need, is the board of education.

    The earth is not flat.....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Tue Nov 26 16:24:28 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:24:59 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    If people are stupid and do it,
    they only have themselves to blame.

    Irrelevant point....

    "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer expressed similar views, whether
    comments are "serious or not" she said people listen to those in
    power."

    Trump is an illiterate person in regards to medicine, and should have
    shut the fuck up.

    Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global
    study finds https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/22/hydroxychloroquine-trumps-covid-19-cure-increases-deaths-global-study-finds

    Ahh... finally a blue sky, fact checked and all, where only the truth will >> be allowed to be told!

    When it comes to accepted/known information, and those like Trump who
    know nothing on a given topic espouse gibberish, their posts need to
    be eliminated. And what they really need, is the board of education.

    The earth is not flat.....


    And let me hasten to add that you are of course fully free not to listen.
    That is everyones right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Blueshirt on Tue Nov 26 16:26:36 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:

    D wrote:

    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to
    view this topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant"
    posts.

    Incorrect. There are facts, fiction and friction!

    No, no, no... that's not correct.

    There are facts and then there are alternative facts!

    :-)

    Please, don't forget the factual alternative facts as well!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 26 22:02:43 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:

    D <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:

    D wrote:

    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to
    view this topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant"
    posts.

    Incorrect. There are facts, fiction and friction!

    No, no, no... that's not correct.

    There are facts and then there are alternative facts!

    :-)

    Please, don't forget the factual alternative facts as well!

    My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.


    I say, we let Gordon decide!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blueshirt@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 26 21:27:50 2024
    D wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:

    D <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:

    There are facts and then there are alternative facts!

    Please, don't forget the factual alternative facts as well!

    My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.

    I say, we let Gordon decide!

    If I said Gordon was a moron, would anyone 'get it'?

    [Yes, I'm showing my age!]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jukka Lahtinen@21:1/5 to JAB on Tue Nov 26 23:57:06 2024
    JAB <[email protected]d> writes:

    Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global

    If some of his followers followed his advice, it was natural selection in action.

    --
    Jukka Lahtinen

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Nov 26 15:57:47 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    If people are stupid and do it,
    they only have themselves to blame.

    Irrelevant point....

    No, you quote me out of context. The context explains why it is not an >irrelevant point.

    Your implicit assumption is all are equal mentally, but adults should
    know children are not, and these adults watch their words around
    children.

    This observation is old news: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
    expressed similar views, whether comments are "serious or not" she
    said people listen to those in power."

    Pied Piper of Hamelin - The phrase "pied piper" has become a metaphor
    for a person who attracts a following through charisma or false
    promises"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Nov 26 15:33:08 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    No, you quote me out of context.

    One has missed the point....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Nov 26 15:59:40 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Yet, many falsehoods were promoted as truths by "fact checkers" during >corona.

    Cite two....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blueshirt@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 27 00:38:36 2024
    Sn!pe wrote:

    Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:

    D wrote:

    I say, we let Gordon decide!

    If I said Gordon was a moron, would anyone 'get it'?

    [Yes, I'm showing my age!]

    Jilted John is still jealous.

    Now you're showing YOUR age! ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 27 10:12:59 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:

    D <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Sn!pe wrote:

    D <[email protected]> wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:

    D wrote:

    On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    There are facts, and there is fiction....only one way to
    view this topic below, and eradicate "pro disinfectant"
    posts.

    Incorrect. There are facts, fiction and friction!

    No, no, no... that's not correct.

    There are facts and then there are alternative facts!

    :-)

    Please, don't forget the factual alternative facts as well!

    My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.


    I say, we let Gordon decide!

    Gordon's answer is below:

    --
    ^�^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS My pet rock Gordon just is.

    'Go to the banks of the great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River,
    all set about with fever-trees, and find out.' --R Kipling


    He is a wise rock! Sometimes I think we should all learn from his example!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Nov 27 10:14:54 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    No, you quote me out of context.

    One has missed the point....


    Wasn't that the point? ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Nov 27 10:18:53 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    If people are stupid and do it,
    they only have themselves to blame.

    Irrelevant point....

    No, you quote me out of context. The context explains why it is not an
    irrelevant point.

    Your implicit assumption is all are equal mentally, but adults should
    know children are not, and these adults watch their words around
    children.

    This observation is old news: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
    expressed similar views, whether comments are "serious or not" she
    said people listen to those in power."

    Pied Piper of Hamelin - The phrase "pied piper" has become a metaphor
    for a person who attracts a following through charisma or false
    promises"


    My assumption is that we are all responisble for our own lives, and we
    have freedom of speech. The ones who are not so well mentally, have
    caretakers, friends or family, who can (but are not forced to) take care
    of them.

    Therefore, there is no problem with Trump saying what he did, since
    it is not a huge assumption that most adults are smart enough to
    understand that.

    If you start to make weird assumptions, eventually you end up not being
    able to say anything at all. There are after all crazy people who might do
    the opposite of what they hear. If Trump would say life, they would commit suicide. Probably no such person exists...but, we can never be sure.

    So censoring yourself based on your assumptions eventually will end up
    with no speech at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Nov 27 10:27:45 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 16:24:05 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Yet, many falsehoods were promoted as truths by "fact checkers" during
    corona.

    Cite two....


    Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

    Vaccine Safety Claims:
    Early in the pandemic, some fact-checkers claimed that there was
    no evidence linking vaccines to serious health issues. However, subsequent reports revealed rare but significant adverse effects associated with
    certain vaccines, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine causing blood clots.
    This led to confusion and criticism regarding the initial assessments that downplayed these risks3
    5
    .
    Origin of the Virus:
    Fact-checkers initially dismissed claims suggesting that the coronavirus could have originated from a laboratory leak as conspiracy theories. However, as investigations continued, this narrative gained
    traction in scientific discussions, leading some to question whether the initial fact-checking was too dismissive of legitimate inquiries into the virus's origins1
    4
    .
    Misinterpretation of Data:
    There were instances where fact-checkers misrepresented studies related to COVID-19 transmission and vaccine efficacy. For example, claims about vaccines altering DNA or causing severe side effects were
    categorically denied based on early data, but later studies indicated that while severe side effects are rare, they do occur and merit closer
    examination5
    .
    Repeated Debunks of Similar Claims:
    A study highlighted that many false narratives regarding COVID-19
    were debunked multiple times across different platforms and countries.
    This redundancy suggested a failure in the fact-checking process to
    effectively communicate and eliminate persistent misinformation2
    .
    Political Claims and Misinformation:
    Fact-checkers faced challenges when assessing political statements about COVID-19 responses from various leaders. For instance, claims made
    by politicians regarding the effectiveness of travel restrictions or the availability of medical supplies were often labeled misleading or false
    without full context, leading to debates about the accuracy of these assessments over time3
    4
    .

    Snopes and PolitiFact's Diverging Ratings
    A study examining over 24,000 fact-checking articles revealed that Snopes
    and PolitiFact often disagreed on the truthfulness of similar claims. For instance, they rated the claim about fatalities during the January 6
    Capitol riot differently: Snopes rated it as true while PolitiFact labeled
    it false due to differing interpretations of the numbers involved. This highlights how subjective interpretations can lead to conflicting ratings between fact-checking organizations1
    .
    Glenn Kessler's Controversial Fact-Check
    Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post faced criticism for a fact-check
    regarding Senator Tom Cotton's comments about COVID-19 relief checks going
    to prisoners. Initially rated with two Pinocchios for lacking context,
    Kessler later downgraded the rating after a court filing confirmed
    Cotton's statement about a specific prisoner receiving funds. Critics
    argued that Kessler's adjustments were insufficient and indicative of bias
    in his evaluations3
    4
    .
    General Observations on Fact-Checking
    Studies have shown that fact-checking is inherently complex and can lead
    to variability among different organizations. For example, discrepancies
    in how statements are selected for fact-checking and how their
    truthfulness is graded can result in significant differences in outcomes.
    This variability suggests that while fact-checkers aim for accuracy, their methodologies can lead to inconsistent conclusions5
    . These instances illustrate that while fact-checkers strive to provide accurate assessments, they are not infallible and can sometimes
    misinterpret or misrepresent claims based on subjective judgment or methodological differences.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Blueshirt on Wed Nov 27 10:33:31 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Blueshirt wrote:

    Sn!pe wrote:

    Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:

    D wrote:

    I say, we let Gordon decide!

    If I said Gordon was a moron, would anyone 'get it'?

    [Yes, I'm showing my age!]

    Jilted John is still jealous.

    Now you're showing YOUR age! ;-)


    Please, gentlemen, I am _not_ showing my age! =/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Jukka Lahtinen on Wed Nov 27 10:15:41 2024
    On Tue, 26 Nov 2024, Jukka Lahtinen wrote:

    JAB <[email protected]d> writes:

    Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global

    If some of his followers followed his advice, it was natural selection in action.


    This is the truth!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Nov 27 08:04:54 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:


    Vaccine Safety Claims:
    Early in the pandemic, some fact-checkers claimed that there was
    no evidence linking vaccines to serious health issues.

    Need a cite....in medical community, its been known for years that any
    vacinne can have a negative outcome for some percent of population.

    A fact-checker gets it right....Misinformation of COVID-19 vaccines
    and vaccine hesitancy- Findings across these studies suggest exposure
    to misinformation and believing it as true could increase vaccine
    hesitancy and reduce behavioral intention to get vaccinated. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17430-6


    See: FactCheck.org
    SciCheck's COVID-19/Vaccination Project https://www.factcheck.org/misconceptions/vaccination/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Nov 27 11:24:17 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:18:53 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    My assumption is that we are all responisble for our own lives, and we
    have freedom of speech. The ones who are not so well mentally, have >caretakers, friends or family, who can (but are not forced to) take care
    of them.

    Therefore, there is no problem with Trump saying what he did, since
    it is not a huge assumption that most adults are smart enough to
    understand that.

    Ann Landers would reject your flawed reasoning since her "ethics were generally considered to be based on promoting empathy, honesty, and
    personal responsibility."

    Personal responsibility is where he fails....Greatly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Nov 27 21:29:00 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:18:53 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    My assumption is that we are all responisble for our own lives, and we
    have freedom of speech. The ones who are not so well mentally, have
    caretakers, friends or family, who can (but are not forced to) take care
    of them.

    Therefore, there is no problem with Trump saying what he did, since
    it is not a huge assumption that most adults are smart enough to
    understand that.

    Ann Landers would reject your flawed reasoning since her "ethics were generally considered to be based on promoting empathy, honesty, and
    personal responsibility."

    Personal responsibility is where he fails....Greatly.


    I don't care about Ann Landers, so this argument is very weak. I reject
    her flawed reasoning, so we're even stephen!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Nov 27 19:28:18 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:29:00 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Personal responsibility is where he fails....Greatly.

    I don't care about Ann Landers, so this argument is very weak.

    Those who are religious would oppose your objection. Misleading or
    deceiving others is not a Christian value, nor a Boy Scout objective.

    What are the Scout Oath?

    Scout Oath - On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my
    country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times;
    to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
    straight.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Thu Nov 28 10:58:52 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:29:00 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Personal responsibility is where he fails....Greatly.

    I don't care about Ann Landers, so this argument is very weak.

    Those who are religious would oppose your objection. Misleading or
    deceiving others is not a Christian value, nor a Boy Scout objective.

    Ethics and morals entail intent. Without intent, it does not apply, since
    life in that case, would be impossible to live in accordance with any
    moral framework.

    Reductio ad absurdum is the Donald Trump of absurdums!

    What are the Scout Oath?

    Scout Oath - On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times;
    to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
    straight.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Nov 28 07:12:51 2024
    On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:58:52 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    absurdums

    "Absurdism is a philosophical theory that life is irrational and
    meaningless, and that the search for meaning is futile"

    The lotus of life negates the above fiction.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Nov 28 18:08:18 2024
    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

    One needs to consult with the professional fact-checkers...and
    understand how fact-checking works.


    That said, professional fact-checking organizations like Snopes,
    Politifact, and FactCheck.org are extremely valuable (as are science
    and skepticism websites that often play the role of fact-checker);
    however, these sources are valuable not because they are
    authoritative, but rather precisely because they are transparent and
    cite their sources. I'd never suggest that someone should blindly
    believe a source like Snopes, but the break-down of why and how they
    came to their conclusion and what sources they used is incredibly
    useful. You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed.

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/04/25/yes-you-should-fact-check/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Fri Nov 29 10:43:37 2024
    On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

    One needs to consult with the professional fact-checkers...and
    understand how fact-checking works.


    That said, professional fact-checking organizations like Snopes,
    Politifact, and FactCheck.org are extremely valuable (as are science
    and skepticism websites that often play the role of fact-checker);
    however, these sources are valuable not because they are
    authoritative, but rather precisely because they are transparent and
    cite their sources. I'd never suggest that someone should blindly
    believe a source like Snopes, but the break-down of why and how they
    came to their conclusion and what sources they used is incredibly
    useful. You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed.

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/04/25/yes-you-should-fact-check/

    That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
    judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous potential for corruptability.

    I have shown you several cases where they have been wrong. Then, on top of that, a lot of polarizing discource is about values, and by definition,
    there can be no "fact" there, which is always forgotten.

    That is when fact checkers tend to stop becoming fact checkers, and become political players.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Nov 29 06:40:40 2024
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:43:37 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
    judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous >potential for corruptability.


    "You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kerr-Mudd, John@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Nov 29 20:03:46 2024
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:43:37 +0100
    D <[email protected]> wrote:



    On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

    One needs to consult with the professional fact-checkers...and
    understand how fact-checking works.


    That said, professional fact-checking organizations like Snopes, Politifact, and FactCheck.org are extremely valuable (as are science
    and skepticism websites that often play the role of fact-checker);
    however, these sources are valuable not because they are
    authoritative, but rather precisely because they are transparent and
    cite their sources. I'd never suggest that someone should blindly
    believe a source like Snopes, but the break-down of why and how they
    came to their conclusion and what sources they used is incredibly
    useful. You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed.

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/04/25/yes-you-should-fact-check/

    That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
    judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous potential for corruptability.

    I have shown you several cases where they have been wrong. Then, on top of that, a lot of polarizing discource is about values, and by definition,
    there can be no "fact" there, which is always forgotten.

    That is when fact checkers tend to stop becoming fact checkers, and become political players.



    'Facts are bad, and I don't like them if they disagree with my position.'

    Post-truth.

    --
    Bah, and indeed Humbug.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Fri Nov 29 22:42:54 2024
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:43:37 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
    judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous
    potential for corruptability.


    "You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed."


    That makes them redundant, since that is what I expect of the media
    outlets I consume. Therefore they just add to the burden, and become a politicized weapon. Especially when different fact checkers come to
    different conclusions. So paradoxically I'd argue that they actually do
    more to obfuscate, than to help.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to John on Fri Nov 29 22:48:38 2024
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:43:37 +0100
    D <[email protected]> wrote:



    On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:27:45 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    Examples of Fact-Checker Errors

    One needs to consult with the professional fact-checkers...and
    understand how fact-checking works.


    That said, professional fact-checking organizations like Snopes,
    Politifact, and FactCheck.org are extremely valuable (as are science
    and skepticism websites that often play the role of fact-checker);
    however, these sources are valuable not because they are
    authoritative, but rather precisely because they are transparent and
    cite their sources. I'd never suggest that someone should blindly
    believe a source like Snopes, but the break-down of why and how they
    came to their conclusion and what sources they used is incredibly
    useful. You don't have to blindly believe fact-checkers because you
    can look at their sources and verify what they are saying! You can
    also cross-check multiple fact-checkers to see if they are in
    agreement or if one has uncovered information that the others missed.

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2024/04/25/yes-you-should-fact-check/

    That's nonsense. Fact checkers are human, and being represented as the
    judges of what is fact or not, gives them enormous power, and enormous
    potential for corruptability.

    I have shown you several cases where they have been wrong. Then, on top of >> that, a lot of polarizing discource is about values, and by definition,
    there can be no "fact" there, which is always forgotten.

    That is when fact checkers tend to stop becoming fact checkers, and become >> political players.



    'Facts are bad, and I don't like them if they disagree with my position.'

    Post-truth.


    "Facts are facts, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" post-post-truth!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Nov 29 19:18:08 2024
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 22:42:54 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:

    So paradoxically I'd argue that they actually do
    more to obfuscate, than to help.

    A professional fact-checker,

    1. Reviews articles, etc...in good faith
    2. Cites sources
    3. And says, based upon these sources, the facts or whatever is/are

    When examining scientific literature, one can say current findings
    support this/that, which may or may not represent a fact based in
    physical reality...depending upon the topic under review.

    A professional fact-checker is making an assessment on current understanding(s), and supports their assertions via cites.

    more to obfuscate

    A fact-checker is not....their finding(s) is/are based upon the "here
    and now" What any person could deduce if they went down that rabbit
    hole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)